Future CCSVI research must avoid the mistakes of past efforts. Specifically, CCSVI research must
1.Use a consistent definition of CCSVI
2.Use reliable technologies for measuring CCSVI
3.Ensure that investigators get hands-on training from experienced CCSVI researchers (poorly trained researchers have contributed to unreliable data about CCSVI)
4.Develop new methods for defining and measuring
Cece wrote:Do we have a consistent definition of CCSVI? How reliable must the technologies be? Is doppler ultrasound indeed unreliable? Phlebography in the hands of someone whose never treated CCSVI, is that reliable? I agree about the need for our researchers to be experienced or trained. I am not sure what can be done to develop new methods for defining and measuring. The only thing I can think of is Dr. Zamboni's plethysmography approach.
But there was a huge range on a study-by-study basis -- including one study that didn't see evidence of blood vessel changes in any of 76 people with or without MS.
That could be because not everyone agrees how to read ultrasound tests to look for those changes, or is trained to see them, researchers said.
"It may well be that the different groups are using different ultrasound techniques," Laupacis told Reuters Health. "It's not a straightforward kind of test."
Users browsing this forum: Robnl